Cochran v. Aguirre, et al.

Filing 84

ORDER denying, without prejudice, Plaintiff's Seventh Motion for Appointment of Counsel 82 signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 2/6/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BILLY COY COCHRAN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
E. AGUIRRE,

15

Defendant.

16

19
20
21

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
PLAINTIFF’S SEVENTH MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
[ECF No. 82]

Plaintiff Billy Coy Cochran is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

§ 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s seventh motion for appointment of counsel, filed
February 3, 2017.
As Plaintiff is well aware, he does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this

22

action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any

23

attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District

24

Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional

25

circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section

26

1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525.

27
28

Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek
volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether
1

1

“exceptional circumstances exist, the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the

2

merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the

3

legal issues involved.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
The test for exceptional circumstances requires the Court to evaluate the Plaintiff’s likelihood

4
5

of success on the merits and the ability of the Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

6

complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.

7

1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Plaintiff has not demonstrated new or

8

different circumstances to merit appointment of counsel in this case. Circumstances common to most

9

prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional

10

circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. The Court finds

11

Plaintiff’s reasons for requesting appointment of counsel indistinguishable from the reasons asserted

12

by most prisoners. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s seventh motion for appointment of counsel is be DENIED

13

without prejudice.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 6, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2